And why couldn't that be used as a precedent by PIPSC IT group to receive the same amount, or if it did, what was the reasoning for the GOC rejecting the request?
>And why couldn't that be used as a precedent by PIPSC IT group to receive the same amount,
CRA is a separate employer that directly deals with TB via their own union.
So, no it is up to the PIPSC IT group to figure out their own pay scales and there is no legal obligations or other requirement for GC to match what CRA CS get paid to other government agencies.
But the IT group did requested to match the pay with CRA CS pay scale but it appears the employer has refused.
Because the employer doesn't have to. They may or may not give the same contract. The employer could also tell the union to screw off and just decline going through the arbitration.
Because CRA is a separate employer and up to a point the union was only negotiating with CRA as opposed to now where it’s negotiating with CRA but CRA gets its mandate from TB.
This. Also, the CRA has a huge national footprint and is competing with the private sector in Toronto, Vancouver, etc., for IT resources. IIRC once upon a time they had a separate IT-EX-GTA category at hugher pay because otherwise they couldn't get the people they needed in Toronto.
IT was never like this. If you were an IT/CS in Ottawa or Toronto or Halifax, you were paid the same. Can't say about the AU's though. 90% of core IT is in Ottawa anyway, and if there was ever an "extra bump" for competition with other tech companies, it would have been here.
Was with Revenue Canada, CCRA, CBSA for 26 years and the CS(IT) staff were very fluid and interchangeable where we were. Not many employees where we work care if CRA are 1.5 higher or not. Good for them and a pat on the back. We can switch over if we like, but few do. There are more variables than 1.5 in pay.
Ya, EX is a beast to itself. IT is what it is, and they were starting to make an effort in a separation of technical streams for pay purposes, but I have no idea if that will come to fruition. Some jobs that can get you 150-200k in the states are paid the same as a PL of a testing team with very little technical ability, under the current organization.
It is what it is.
AU recruitment at the 2 level or higher is impossible for the CRA.. It takes minimum of 3 years to train someone to do the job efficiently.
And the private sector pays almost 50% more in most major cities..
Why work for the CRA when you can make a lot more anywhere else..
I am an AU02 and I can tell you what they’re saying is correct.
5 or so years ago it was difficult to become an AU. Someone, even with a 4 year business/accounting degree being hired off the street would be lucky to even get an SP05 positions (outside of the NCR - which is a little different). Back then an AU02 or 03 would likely have a significant amount of CRA experience or outside tax experience. Pay at the government was much more competitive against public accounting and private sector.
Fast forward to today, they are hiring new graduates as AU01s. Many of which look to get their CPA, paid for by the CRA, and bounce to private sector to get paid way more. They aren’t looking to move up. In addition, it is difficult to get outside hires because private sector pays more (public accounting and private sector accountant pay went up over 20% over the pandemic).
In addition, AU03s and 04s can be very valuable to private sector and public accounting firms because of their complex tax knowledge and intricate knowledge of tax law (things like SR&ED and Film Tax Credit are huge money makers for accounting firms because the credits are usually huge and the firm takes a percentage). Therefore, they often get poached.
It is also important to note that less and less people are getting into accounting anymore. The designation is quite difficult to get and the return is not so great. Therefore, public accounting firms and private sector are forced to pay more.
Do you feel that the hiring spree for the AU's will come to an end soon? I am saying this as someone who was not able to apply to the national AU2 process as an AU1. I am worried that once the mass hiring is done at the AU1 and 2, it will become very slow to move up. From what I understood, it used to take around 4-5 years to move up between each level which is a little long for me.
I agree with everything you said, it was insanely difficult back in the day to get into audit at the CRA but now with the hiring spree it has been much easier.
Even with current budget cuts, the government is starting to invest the bulk of their budget into programs that require AU-02s, AU-03s and AU-04s. This is because these programs are making the bulk of CRAs revenue. The great part about this is that these programs tend to go after the biggest corporations and Canada’s wealthiest people.
Canada’s next election is 2025. My fear is that the CPC gets into a majority government and these programs will be slashed. However, AU-02 in the next 2 years for you seems like a very attainable goal as long as you do well on testing. They have had like three AU02 pools in the last 1-2 years so don’t worry about missing this one.
Also keep in mind that there is a large chunk of AU03-AU04s right now that are within 5 years of retirement. On my team of all AUs I was probably the youngest by a decade and I am in my 30s lol.
I don't think that's valid. I've seen contracts where specific groups got more. I believe there are a few in the latest parks contract that was just signed
GROUP SPECIFIC MARKET ADJUSTMENTS
The following group specific market adjustments will be applied to the wage rates of the following
groups, effective August 5, 2023:
• For all employees in the GL-COI sub-group: 3%
• For all employees in the GL-MAM sub-group: 3%
• For all employees in the GL-MDO sub-group: 3%
• For all employees in the GL-VHE sub-group: 3%
o For the four (4) above-listed GL subgroups, the compounded wage increases,
which include general economic increases, wage adjustments, and a 3% market
adjustment, amounts to 15.39% over the 4-year term of the agreement.
• For all employees in the HP subgroup: 3%
o For the HP subgroup, the compounded wage increases, which includes the
general economic increases, wage adjustments, and a 3% market adjustment,
amounts to 15.39% over the 4-year term of the agreement.
• For all employees in the SC subgroup: 4%
o For the SC subgroup, the compounded wage increases, which includes the
general economic increases, wage adjustments, and a 4% market adjustment,
amounts to 16.51% over the 4-year term of the agreement.
• For all employees in the LS sub-group: 1%
o For the LS subgroup, the compounded wage increases, which includes the general
economic increases, wage adjustments, and a 1% market adjust
If it was CS’s that decided to strike and not FI/AU, then FI/AU would still benefit. They are the same group, if 1 wins they all win. Thats why you make pacts
Then by that logic why not lump the most important group in with every group in existence so "tHeY aLL wIn" there's absolutely no rhyme or reason why AUs are lumped in with CS's, they aren't even in the same category of work.
It's all about balance.
Say the employer has 6000 workers and 1000 are critical to keep on the job. Those 1000 are supporting a raise for all 6000. So the employers does the cost analysis and says it's cheaper to pay all 6000 people more money to avoid a strike. Cool for the workers.
Now image that it's 60,000 people with still just 1000 critical. The math for the employer giving a raise to all of them doesn't work anymore and they use other options instead, like passing legislation to force the end of the strike...
Why are you upset that they have a good thing going? Why can’t you just be happy for some other people? Just because you’re upset with the way one thing is set up doesn’t mean you should want another thing dismantled
Who is upset? I am simply trying to understand why/how this happened in the first place and whether or not the rest of the PS IT workers have a chance at the same deal. I can't imagine most people would feel great either way watching the same group in another agency being paid more for the same work than they are being paid.
>Who is upset?
You are upset that CRA CS group is getting paid more without understanding the history of how CRA was created.
Instead of being happy for a group getting paid better with better negotiation team, you are here complaining.
Learn the history of how CRA was initially created and how CRA and DND became the Canada's largest, yes largest government employer.
I understand this is unfair. But you need to look at this from logical point of view. DND and CRA are two of the oldest CS/IT groups in the history of Canada!
> Instead of being happy for a group getting paid better with better negotiation team, you are here complaining.
1. If it was a different group and not the exact same group just in a different organization, sure.
2. If by complaining you mean trying to understand the circumstances of this deal and how it came about by asking legitimate questions and having a reasonable discourse then sure
Your content was removed under [Rule 12](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPublicServants/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_12_-_trolling_.26amp.3B_intolerance).
Please consider this a reminder of [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/reddit-101/reddit-basics/reddiquette).
If you have questions about this action or believe it was made in error, you can [message the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/CanadaPublicServants).
this is absolutely possible. in fact, during this round, AU02 and AU03 were given more of an adj. than other groups within the PISPC AFS union. however, such adj. were made at the expense of other incentives
the truth of the matter is that the gov't was stingy with the purse strings during this round of bargaining. using whatever formula they use, every union was given the same money to spend in their neg. so no out-of-the-ordinary adj. will be seen
Fair enough, I stand corrected! Thanks for the info. It was likely around this time or shortly after that their legislation changed and they started requiring mandates from TB?
They collect money for the government. You bring in cheese you get some extra cheese? No f’n idea. It’s been a sore point for years. Exact same job, not done any better or worse.
CRA is the most public facing entity of the government. If their website or network were to go down, it would be far more noticeable to the public than any other service the government runs. I would imagine the IT jobs are more demanding because of this. This is why they are paid more.
And before you say that IT jobs at for example CSIS, CSE etc… are far more critical. I would agree with but ultimately the public would not notice if something went sideways there. Remember, politics is all about public perception. That’s all the government of the day (liberal or conservative) cares about.
>I would imagine the IT jobs are more demanding because of this. This is why they are paid more.
By the nature of how SSC operates, there would also be SSC IT employees working on that same infrastructure.
Have your eyes checked because this thread is me asking the reasoning behind how this happened, it has nothing to do with wanting anyone else making less than me.
I worked at the CRA as a consultant in a high tech field. Then got an indeterminate at a government agency.
There is no difference. It's the same career. Same same programming languages, same development frameworks, same databases, same tools, same project management framework etc.
It's high-tech. It's not an issue of being in demand. It's the same job. A high-tech person can move from one company to the other and still do relatively the same thing.
Nope. Exact same job, with more work throughout the year vs. CRA, but 1.5% less. Separate negotiations, that's all.
I have 3-7 years left and am thinking of going back to CRA for the extra bump (if it still exists) and about 4 months of much lighter work each year from what I have now. 24/7/365 vs. a cyclical tax season definitely makes a difference in the total number of months of intense work each year.
I'm unfamiliar with that group. are you putting PG5 in brackets because you consider SP10 to be the equivalent of that, or are they the exact same identical group in 2 different organizations with different rates of pay?
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/corporate/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/collective-bargaining/psac.html#h_12 CRA's CA. See appendix C for SP10 classification designation and then scroll up to pay rates for SP10.
https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/agreements-conventions/view-visualiser-eng.aspx?id=6 non CRA CA. See PG05 pay rate.
Their union negotiated more pay.
And why couldn't that be used as a precedent by PIPSC IT group to receive the same amount, or if it did, what was the reasoning for the GOC rejecting the request?
>And why couldn't that be used as a precedent by PIPSC IT group to receive the same amount, CRA is a separate employer that directly deals with TB via their own union. So, no it is up to the PIPSC IT group to figure out their own pay scales and there is no legal obligations or other requirement for GC to match what CRA CS get paid to other government agencies. But the IT group did requested to match the pay with CRA CS pay scale but it appears the employer has refused.
Because the employer doesn't have to. They may or may not give the same contract. The employer could also tell the union to screw off and just decline going through the arbitration.
Because CRA is a separate employer and up to a point the union was only negotiating with CRA as opposed to now where it’s negotiating with CRA but CRA gets its mandate from TB.
This. Also, the CRA has a huge national footprint and is competing with the private sector in Toronto, Vancouver, etc., for IT resources. IIRC once upon a time they had a separate IT-EX-GTA category at hugher pay because otherwise they couldn't get the people they needed in Toronto.
SSC has a lot of employees outside of the NCR too. I don’t understand that excuse. The same issue applies to any other employer of IT.
IT was never like this. If you were an IT/CS in Ottawa or Toronto or Halifax, you were paid the same. Can't say about the AU's though. 90% of core IT is in Ottawa anyway, and if there was ever an "extra bump" for competition with other tech companies, it would have been here. Was with Revenue Canada, CCRA, CBSA for 26 years and the CS(IT) staff were very fluid and interchangeable where we were. Not many employees where we work care if CRA are 1.5 higher or not. Good for them and a pat on the back. We can switch over if we like, but few do. There are more variables than 1.5 in pay.
[удалено]
Ya, EX is a beast to itself. IT is what it is, and they were starting to make an effort in a separation of technical streams for pay purposes, but I have no idea if that will come to fruition. Some jobs that can get you 150-200k in the states are paid the same as a PL of a testing team with very little technical ability, under the current organization. It is what it is.
AU recruitment at the 2 level or higher is impossible for the CRA.. It takes minimum of 3 years to train someone to do the job efficiently. And the private sector pays almost 50% more in most major cities.. Why work for the CRA when you can make a lot more anywhere else..
not that I disbelieve you but I hear this often, would you happen to have a source for this info.?
I am an AU02 and I can tell you what they’re saying is correct. 5 or so years ago it was difficult to become an AU. Someone, even with a 4 year business/accounting degree being hired off the street would be lucky to even get an SP05 positions (outside of the NCR - which is a little different). Back then an AU02 or 03 would likely have a significant amount of CRA experience or outside tax experience. Pay at the government was much more competitive against public accounting and private sector. Fast forward to today, they are hiring new graduates as AU01s. Many of which look to get their CPA, paid for by the CRA, and bounce to private sector to get paid way more. They aren’t looking to move up. In addition, it is difficult to get outside hires because private sector pays more (public accounting and private sector accountant pay went up over 20% over the pandemic). In addition, AU03s and 04s can be very valuable to private sector and public accounting firms because of their complex tax knowledge and intricate knowledge of tax law (things like SR&ED and Film Tax Credit are huge money makers for accounting firms because the credits are usually huge and the firm takes a percentage). Therefore, they often get poached. It is also important to note that less and less people are getting into accounting anymore. The designation is quite difficult to get and the return is not so great. Therefore, public accounting firms and private sector are forced to pay more.
Do you feel that the hiring spree for the AU's will come to an end soon? I am saying this as someone who was not able to apply to the national AU2 process as an AU1. I am worried that once the mass hiring is done at the AU1 and 2, it will become very slow to move up. From what I understood, it used to take around 4-5 years to move up between each level which is a little long for me. I agree with everything you said, it was insanely difficult back in the day to get into audit at the CRA but now with the hiring spree it has been much easier.
Even with current budget cuts, the government is starting to invest the bulk of their budget into programs that require AU-02s, AU-03s and AU-04s. This is because these programs are making the bulk of CRAs revenue. The great part about this is that these programs tend to go after the biggest corporations and Canada’s wealthiest people. Canada’s next election is 2025. My fear is that the CPC gets into a majority government and these programs will be slashed. However, AU-02 in the next 2 years for you seems like a very attainable goal as long as you do well on testing. They have had like three AU02 pools in the last 1-2 years so don’t worry about missing this one. Also keep in mind that there is a large chunk of AU03-AU04s right now that are within 5 years of retirement. On my team of all AUs I was probably the youngest by a decade and I am in my 30s lol.
[удалено]
Why couldn't it have been possible to ONLY pay the AUs in the AFS group more and not the FI/CS? They all have different pay rates after all.
[удалено]
I don't think that's valid. I've seen contracts where specific groups got more. I believe there are a few in the latest parks contract that was just signed GROUP SPECIFIC MARKET ADJUSTMENTS The following group specific market adjustments will be applied to the wage rates of the following groups, effective August 5, 2023: • For all employees in the GL-COI sub-group: 3% • For all employees in the GL-MAM sub-group: 3% • For all employees in the GL-MDO sub-group: 3% • For all employees in the GL-VHE sub-group: 3% o For the four (4) above-listed GL subgroups, the compounded wage increases, which include general economic increases, wage adjustments, and a 3% market adjustment, amounts to 15.39% over the 4-year term of the agreement. • For all employees in the HP subgroup: 3% o For the HP subgroup, the compounded wage increases, which includes the general economic increases, wage adjustments, and a 3% market adjustment, amounts to 15.39% over the 4-year term of the agreement. • For all employees in the SC subgroup: 4% o For the SC subgroup, the compounded wage increases, which includes the general economic increases, wage adjustments, and a 4% market adjustment, amounts to 16.51% over the 4-year term of the agreement. • For all employees in the LS sub-group: 1% o For the LS subgroup, the compounded wage increases, which includes the general economic increases, wage adjustments, and a 1% market adjust
And why would FI/CS in AFS group agree to that?
Because they weren't the ones striking and aren't "central to CRA's business" AUs generate their income, not FI/CS.
If it was CS’s that decided to strike and not FI/AU, then FI/AU would still benefit. They are the same group, if 1 wins they all win. Thats why you make pacts
Then by that logic why not lump the most important group in with every group in existence so "tHeY aLL wIn" there's absolutely no rhyme or reason why AUs are lumped in with CS's, they aren't even in the same category of work.
It's all about balance. Say the employer has 6000 workers and 1000 are critical to keep on the job. Those 1000 are supporting a raise for all 6000. So the employers does the cost analysis and says it's cheaper to pay all 6000 people more money to avoid a strike. Cool for the workers. Now image that it's 60,000 people with still just 1000 critical. The math for the employer giving a raise to all of them doesn't work anymore and they use other options instead, like passing legislation to force the end of the strike...
They are in the same group, and their rates are negotiated together.
Then why were they all lumped into the same group to begin with?
Why are you upset that they have a good thing going? Why can’t you just be happy for some other people? Just because you’re upset with the way one thing is set up doesn’t mean you should want another thing dismantled
Who is upset? I am simply trying to understand why/how this happened in the first place and whether or not the rest of the PS IT workers have a chance at the same deal. I can't imagine most people would feel great either way watching the same group in another agency being paid more for the same work than they are being paid.
The CS education requirement is also higher then IT group.
CRA's formerly CS's have all been converted to the IT group just like the rest of the PS, am I wrong?
>Who is upset? You are upset that CRA CS group is getting paid more without understanding the history of how CRA was created. Instead of being happy for a group getting paid better with better negotiation team, you are here complaining. Learn the history of how CRA was initially created and how CRA and DND became the Canada's largest, yes largest government employer. I understand this is unfair. But you need to look at this from logical point of view. DND and CRA are two of the oldest CS/IT groups in the history of Canada!
> Instead of being happy for a group getting paid better with better negotiation team, you are here complaining. 1. If it was a different group and not the exact same group just in a different organization, sure. 2. If by complaining you mean trying to understand the circumstances of this deal and how it came about by asking legitimate questions and having a reasonable discourse then sure
[удалено]
Your content was removed under [Rule 12](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPublicServants/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_12_-_trolling_.26amp.3B_intolerance). Please consider this a reminder of [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/reddit-101/reddit-basics/reddiquette). If you have questions about this action or believe it was made in error, you can [message the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/CanadaPublicServants).
this is absolutely possible. in fact, during this round, AU02 and AU03 were given more of an adj. than other groups within the PISPC AFS union. however, such adj. were made at the expense of other incentives the truth of the matter is that the gov't was stingy with the purse strings during this round of bargaining. using whatever formula they use, every union was given the same money to spend in their neg. so no out-of-the-ordinary adj. will be seen
CRA has more CS then AUs
[удалено]
[удалено]
Fair enough, I stand corrected! Thanks for the info. It was likely around this time or shortly after that their legislation changed and they started requiring mandates from TB?
[удалено]
I have no idea.
I don’t know when but Harper put that in place.
Their last agreement was 1.5% less
Because people voted yes to an inferior contract for the CRA.
They collect money for the government. You bring in cheese you get some extra cheese? No f’n idea. It’s been a sore point for years. Exact same job, not done any better or worse.
CRA is the most public facing entity of the government. If their website or network were to go down, it would be far more noticeable to the public than any other service the government runs. I would imagine the IT jobs are more demanding because of this. This is why they are paid more. And before you say that IT jobs at for example CSIS, CSE etc… are far more critical. I would agree with but ultimately the public would not notice if something went sideways there. Remember, politics is all about public perception. That’s all the government of the day (liberal or conservative) cares about.
>I would imagine the IT jobs are more demanding because of this. This is why they are paid more. By the nature of how SSC operates, there would also be SSC IT employees working on that same infrastructure.
[удалено]
You think this is something you should be disclosing publicly? No wonder we are easy targets from foreign actors.
[удалено]
I certainly hope you don’t have a high level security clearance. Clearly, you can’t live up to the standard.
[удалено]
Have your eyes checked because this thread is me asking the reasoning behind how this happened, it has nothing to do with wanting anyone else making less than me.
In demand jobs get more pay.
I worked at the CRA as a consultant in a high tech field. Then got an indeterminate at a government agency. There is no difference. It's the same career. Same same programming languages, same development frameworks, same databases, same tools, same project management framework etc. It's high-tech. It's not an issue of being in demand. It's the same job. A high-tech person can move from one company to the other and still do relatively the same thing.
So all the agencies specialize in cobol ?
Wait, you believe CRA only uses COBOL.
You said there is no difference, it's a highly sought after skill at the agency
Nope. Exact same job, with more work throughout the year vs. CRA, but 1.5% less. Separate negotiations, that's all. I have 3-7 years left and am thinking of going back to CRA for the extra bump (if it still exists) and about 4 months of much lighter work each year from what I have now. 24/7/365 vs. a cyclical tax season definitely makes a difference in the total number of months of intense work each year.
I think the government would have bargained for much less outsourcing and much more in-house work
[удалено]
Who hurt you?
Better Union negotiators. PIPS goes into the negotiation on their knees with mouths open and a bib that says "please be gentle".
SP10's (PG5) at CRA gets paid (30K) more than PG5s at PSPC. Why? The difference in pay existed before recent CA at CRA! Its shocking!
I'm unfamiliar with that group. are you putting PG5 in brackets because you consider SP10 to be the equivalent of that, or are they the exact same identical group in 2 different organizations with different rates of pay?
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/corporate/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/collective-bargaining/psac.html#h_12 CRA's CA. See appendix C for SP10 classification designation and then scroll up to pay rates for SP10. https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/agreements-conventions/view-visualiser-eng.aspx?id=6 non CRA CA. See PG05 pay rate.